Violence in savage societies driven more by interpersonal conflict than warfare.
23 replies, posted
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23340252[/URL]
[quote]Researchers from Abo Academy University in Finland say that violence in early human communities was driven by personal conflicts rather than large-scale battles.They say their findings suggest that war is not an innate part of human nature, but rather a behaviour that we have adopted more recently.
The study is published in the journal Science.
Patrik Soderberg, an author of the study, said: "This research questions the idea that war was ever-present in our ancestral past. It paints another picture where the quarrels and aggression were primarily about interpersonal motives instead of groups fighting against each other."
[B]Motives for murder
[/B]
The research team based their findings on isolated tribes from around the world that had been studied over the last century.[/quote]
[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/68791000/jpg/_68791809_c0087612-hunter_with_bushbaby_and_monkey,_tanzania-spl.jpg[/IMG]
[I][I][quote]The scientists looked at modern hunter gatherer savages to trace the history of war.[/quote]
[/I]
[/I][I]It's a rather morbid thought given that death due to violence was exceeding high, so murder was an everyday experience for our ancestors. (As opposed to warfare).[/I]
Not sure I agree with the use of the word 'savage' when so many others would have sufficed, but the findings of the research are certainly interesting.
[QUOTE=Harnbrand;41531209]Not sure I agree with the use of the word 'savage' when so many others would have sufficed, but the findings of the research are certainly interesting.[/QUOTE]
Why not? It means the opposite of civilised.
[QUOTE=Harnbrand;41531209]Not sure I agree with the use of the word 'savage' when so many others would have sufficed, but the findings of the research are certainly interesting.[/QUOTE]I reminds me of how people used to call Native Americans "savages".
Also I find it really interesting how, even in this modern world we live in today, there are still hunter-gatherer tribal groups out there, still living the life our ancestors used to.
[QUOTE=Harnbrand;41531209]Not sure I agree with the use of the word 'savage' when so many others would have sufficed, but the findings of the research are certainly interesting.[/QUOTE]
I think it's accurate
since for all of history, the definition in practice has basically been "not me"
Thread derailed to semantics discussion in; 1 post.
[QUOTE=Harnbrand;41531209]Not sure I agree with the use of the word 'savage' when so many others would have sufficed, but the findings of the research are certainly interesting.[/QUOTE]
For fuck's sake, listen to Rents and shutup with this bullshit.
On topic, this doesn't seem very surprising. Its only nowadays that we have people in charge sending entire groups into the slaughter over stupid shit. Back then they probably just went like, "you stole my shit? imma kill you now".
[QUOTE=Harnbrand;41531209]Not sure I agree with the use of the word 'savage' when so many others would have sufficed, but the findings of the research are certainly interesting.[/QUOTE]
'Savage' literally means 'From the Woods'.
It only gained its negative connotations when racism went full retard over the last couple hundred years.
It's just warfare on a small scale. Family versus family, or person versus person.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41534110]For fuck's sake, listen to Rents and shutup with this bullshit.
On topic, this doesn't seem very surprising. Its only nowadays that we have people in charge sending entire groups into the slaughter over stupid shit. Back then they probably just went like, "you stole my shit? imma kill you now".[/QUOTE]
Back then, there wasn't really large groups to send out into slaughter though. In a small tribe, everyone is valuable so it'd probably be best to keep your vendetta to yourself.
[QUOTE=Aman;41534212]It's just warfare on a small scale. Family versus family, or person versus person.[/QUOTE]
so not really warfare
who would have thought we didn't kill thousands of each other when all we knew were the 10 or so people living in our village
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41534239]so not really warfare[/QUOTE]
It is in the most basic of ways.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;41534280]It is in the most basic of ways.[/QUOTE]
murder isn't warfare though
Is it really surprising that warfare was function of cities and towns? Even the Bible teaches this idea in the beginning of Genesis. The first death was through interpersonal conflict as opposed to warfare.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;41534228]Back then, there wasn't really large groups to send out into slaughter though. In a small tribe, everyone is valuable so it'd probably be best to keep your vendetta to yourself.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much what I was thinking.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41534337]murder isn't warfare though[/QUOTE]
What difference is there between them other than scale?
[QUOTE=zakedodead;41535730]What difference is there between them other than scale?[/QUOTE]
context
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41536310]context[/QUOTE]
Why don't we just stop using doublespeak and acknowledge the fact that war is simply mass judicial murder.
If a family is fighting another family (ala Guelphs vs Ghibellenes, or Macleods vs Macdonalds or whatever) then it still classifies as a war.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41536374]Why don't we just stop using doublespeak and acknowledge the fact that war is simply mass judicial murder.
If a family is fighting another family (ala Guelphs vs Ghibellenes, or Macleods vs Macdonalds or whatever) then it still classifies as a war.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget the the war of 2012 between belligerents Trayvon and Zimmerman.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;41536406]Don't forget the the war of 2012 between belligerents Trayvon and Zimmerman.[/QUOTE]
Is this intentionally ridiculously hyperbolic, I can't tell
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41536413]Is this intentionally ridiculously hyperbolic, I can't tell[/QUOTE]
Sorry I was talking about murder, and someone said murder is the same thing as war.
So obviously, I can classify that topical shooting as war right?
Homocide is different to war in that a spur of the moment killing is not an act of war, but still murder.
War is murder, murder isn't war.
Another analogy: Crips vs. Bloods could be considered a war, but killing your dealer to get at his stash would not be. The article is saying that situations like the second were more common than the first.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.